ArticlePloS one2025
The English Debating Self-Efficacy Scale: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The importance of English debate in fostering critical thinking and the role of self-efficacy in enhancing confidence and performance in this domain are widely acknowledged. However, a significant gap exists in the literature regarding the measurement of self-efficacy specifically within English debate. This research seeks to fill this gap by developing and validating an English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale (EDSS). Using a sample of 1,259 participants from an independent college in Hebei Province, China, the study divided participants into two groups: 613 for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and 646 for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with convenience sampling as the chosen methodology. EFA revealed three core dimensions of debate-related self-efficacy: Language proficiency (Cronbach's Alpha = .894), Debating skills (Cronbach's Alpha = .861), and Team collaboration (Cronbach's Alpha = .831). Subsequent CFA validation with an independent sample confirmed the scale's structure, demonstrating strong structural, convergent, and discriminant validity. Additionally, significant correlations between the English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale and the English Proficiency Self-Efficacy Scale supported the scale's criterion validity. These findings underscore the scale's potential as a reliable tool for assessing self-efficacy in English debate contexts, offering valuable insights for research, teaching, and training in educational settings. Limitations related to sample representativeness and research design were also discussed, providing a foundation for future studies to expand upon. In conclusion, the English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale (EDSS) is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring self-efficacy in the context of English debate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.